Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Hurley, McKenna & Mertz settles many medical malpractice cases each year. The following situation is upsetting, in my opinion, because Chicago area ophthalmologist, Dr. Nicholas Caro, is still practicing despite upwards of 50 medical malpractice suits and a year-old recommendation from the Illinois chief medical prosecutor that the Lasik surgeon have his license revoked (Chicago Tribune, Shelton 7/6). Depositions and documents complied for the cases against Dr. Caro consistently describe patients “repeatedly seeking treatment for painful or worrisome side effects” post Lasik surgery. Medical records show that some patients returned to Dr. Caro more than a dozen times after surgery. Several patients ended up with corneas damaged beyond repair, others were forced to consider cornea transplants if they wanted to see as well as they could prior to the botched surgery.

The formal complaint alleges that Caro mishandled Lasik surgeries and “failed to properly manage treatment of post-operative complications.” Yet, no disciplinary action has been taken and Caro continues to operate on people's eyes, highlighting ongoing concerns that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is not aggressive enough in pursuing bad doctors.

Although Dr. Caro blames the situation on an overly litigious society, according to the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company, which insures about 30 percent of U.S. ophthalmologists, “about 75 percent of the specialists who practice at least 25 years have three or fewer lawsuits or malpractice claims in their career.” The Chicago Tribune further “checked the records of more than a dozen other ophthalmologists in the Chicago area and found that none had been sued for malpractice more than 12 times; most had far fewer lawsuits.” Therefore, it is my opinion that Dr. Caro is far above what can be considered an average number of malpractice complaints. As a medical malpractice lawyer, I am disappointed with the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation’s sluggish response to complaints against Dr. Caro. In my opinion, patients are subjected to undue risks each additional day Dr. Caro is permitted to practice.